Accused killer’s attorney argues against death penalty
The attorney representing a North Union Township man accused of fatally stabbing a woman in her home in 2013 has submitted further arguments in Fayette County Court to support a motion filed nearly a year ago to dismiss evidence in the case and discontinue capital proceedings.
Henry Clay Crawford, 57, is accused of breaking into Lisa Tupta’s home in the Holiday Mobile Home Park in North Union Township and stabbing her to death on Jan. 28, 2013. The prosecution is seeking the death penalty, indicating that prior violations of protection-from-abuse orders, the alleged use of torture, a significant history of felony convictions and the allegation that the killing occurred during the commission of another felony elevate the crime to capital level.
Crawford’s attorney, Public Defender Jeffrey Whiteko, filed pretrial motions on April 23, 2013, asking the court to suppress statements Crawford made to police and to consider the constitutionality of the death penalty, among other issues.
A hearing was held before Judge Steve P. Leskinen on March 27 to address some of the issues, and Whiteko on Wednesday submitted briefs in support of his arguments before the judge.
Regarding testimony offered by state police Trooper Nathaniel Lieberum at the hearing, Whiteko noted that the officer testified he had not explained to Crawford his rights against self-incrimination before engaging in a conversation with the defendant at Uniontown Hospital.
“Since the defendant did not want to talk about the incident, (Lieberum) played on the defendant’s emotions by talking about the defendant’s son, who was murdered in Pershing Court (in Uniontown),” Whiteko wrote.
Lieberum at some point informed Crawford that Tupta was “in bad shape” and asked if he would like to write her a letter, Whiteko wrote. The officer, according to Whiteko, then brought Crawford a pen and paper, and upon learning that Tupta had died, asked Crawford if he also would like to write a letter about what happened to the victim’s son.
“It is clear that this officer played on the defendant’s emotions, bringing up his dead son and the condition of the victim,” Whiteko argued. “The intent is clear: to get an illegal statement from the defendant. Despite what the commonwealth wishes the court to believe, any questions are an interrogation and in this case a clear violation of the spirit against self-incrimination.”
Lieberum’s testimony at the March 27 hearing was that he clarified to Crawford that the letters would be read in court.
Whiteko also argued that when state police Trooper Jason Hatalsky escorted Crawford from the closet in Tupta’s home, where police found him hiding and asked why Crawford had blood on him, the inquiry amounted to police questioning since the defendant was in handcuffs. Whiteko contended Crawford should have been read his Miranda rights, although it was Hatalsky’s testimony that he wanted to know whether there were possibly more injuries that needed medical attention.
Another statement made by Crawford to police while in handcuffs at the hospital was one state police Trooper Thomas Cegan testified about at last month’s hearing also should be tossed, Whiteko argued.
According to Whiteko, Crawford mentioned a past driving under the influence charge to Cegan, and Cegan testified that he asked if that charge led to the incident in Tupta’s home. Whiteko quoted Cegan’s testimony that “(Crawford) paused, he didn’t say anything … then he told me he got into an argument with his girlfriend … She came at him with a knife … “
Whiteko wrote, “At no time while defendant started talking did the officer tell him to stop or ‘Mirandize’ him. His explanation for not ‘Mirandizing’ (Crawford) was because he did not know if he was the suspect or accused and he did not want to intrude in his personal life.”
In another court filing regarding the imposition of the death penalty, Whiteko argued that the state’s capital sentencing scheme violates due process rights and rights against cruel and unusual punishment.
Whiteko explained that the prosecution is not required to provide any level of proof of aggravating circumstances put forth to bolster the pursuit of the death penalty.
“In essence, prosecutors can merely file a notice of intention to seek the death penalty and force a death penalty proceeding without any independent, neutral check on whether any probable cause exists for seeking the death penalty,” he wrote.
Whiteko went on to say that the prosecution has failed to specify the nature of the aggravating circumstances, even after the defense objected to “boiler plate” assertions in the notice of intention to seek the death penalty.
That lack of specificity, Whiteko contended, lends credence to the notion that “these are not well thought out reason notices but are merely used for political and publicity stunts, playing on the sympathy of the public and not in any way looking at the impact of the family or the alleged suspect.”
Additionally, Whiteko suggested he expects the prosecution to present victim impact evidence at trial, but to do so without informing the defense who those witnesses might be is unfair.
“A defendant is left to guess at who may be called as a victim impact witness and what they may testify about,” Whiteko wrote. “Without notice, a defendant is left without any ability to interview these witnesses or look into any evidence they may testify about. This statutory scheme violates due process.”
At the March hearing, the motion for change of venue was withdrawn. Leskinen will rule on the remaining pending pretrial motions at a later date.